YouTube To Curb Hoax And Junk Science Videos
Added 2019-01-28 00:23:29 +0000 UTCIt seems that after a decade of promoting click-bait over content that YouTube are adding - dare I say - People! Yes, people to help untangle the mess of disinformation, chicanery, fraud, and hoax videos in recommendations. A good thing? I tend to think so, but let's wait and see if YouTube messes this one up.
New Hat! Like it? Wendy Allen is my milliner so check out her amazing hand made hats (https://missfitt.com/about/)
That YouTube post about new recommendation controls: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html
My Apollo Hoax Conspiracy Epidemic video from 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1gChEOfl4Q
Comments
Just at a guess, by using "economical" people instead of expensive electronics, Alphabet's bean counters are replacing artificial intelligence with natural stupidity. Not sure if that means the pendulum is on the left or right side just now ;-)
Keith Wright
2019-02-07 19:35:46 +0000 UTCYep. A company selling an apparently or seemingly fraudulent product ought to be treated differently from a casual or purely informational post. Posting alleged pics of UFOs - OK. Selling pics of hubcaps claimed to be UFOs - Not OK.
2019-02-02 22:04:19 +0000 UTCHey, what if we Patreons start a little conspiracy about the hat colour on the YT video, with some of us claiming to see it as greenish-violet, and others being positive it's blueish-purple. Think it will go viral? :)))
2019-01-28 18:59:20 +0000 UTCI hope a Patreon view also registers as a YouTube view.
2019-01-28 13:29:33 +0000 UTCNice hat, and I learned a new word today: ' milliner' :)
2019-01-28 13:12:24 +0000 UTCMaybe they can start with the solar roadways and audiophoolery videos.
MrMobodies
2019-01-28 11:31:52 +0000 UTCThe question is, what constitutes junk science, and who determines that? In some cases it's obvious, in others not so obvious. If political or financial influences were allowed to decide on the less obvious, that would be bad. For example of where this leads, Wikipedia still categorizes Pons and Fleischmann's experiment as 'pathological science' even though it has been validated. Meanwhile, pages making exaggerated and unrealistic claims for wind energy (basically, soap-powder ads for the product) are edit-protected to stop editors from correcting these exaggerations. YT may contain a lot of junk, but I think that's infinitely preferable to having vested commercial and political interests detemine what may and may not be said on the site, as with Wikipedia.
2019-01-28 10:31:26 +0000 UTCI loved the disclaimer "This is not a Frant", even though I anticipated it from the description.
2019-01-28 05:08:56 +0000 UTCThe "auto unsub" thing - if it's true I think that's very bad (sorry I can't think of a better word). Knowing YouTube requires certain number of viewers to qualify you to monetize it is possible they do some kind of manipulation to reduce qualified publishers...
2019-01-28 03:11:22 +0000 UTCConsidering they have managed to mess up so much over the last several years I'm not expecting much. But I've become quite the pessimist.
Jessica McIntosh
2019-01-28 00:24:55 +0000 UTC
